I enjoyed commuting around London when I worked there for a few months last year, it was a good buzz. Although I would never recommend it to a novice or a young family, sounds good as long as its paid for by Londoners.

It looks like the stuff they're planning to build is going to be light years ahead of most current "cycle infrastructure" in the UK. I've cycled down this bit, which is currently shared use pavement, and got accosted by an angry pedestrian who refused to accept that we had a right to be there.

Doesn't worry me. Remember that a significant portion of the potential users of infrastructure are not the "we ARE the traffic" cyclists.

UK segregated usually means slapping a can of dulux down the middle of a pavement, and expecting pedestrians to take note. And non-segregated lane usually means painting a stripe "forcing" cyclists to ride in the road debris.

Looks like some one has finally actually spent a few bob on a business trip to Amsterdam (or hired a Dutch consultant).

I was in Cambridge yesterday and was really impressed with all the bikes, no good reason why central London can't do the same. The main barrier to it seems to be apathy as we Londoners are a fickle bunch, why bike when you can take the tube?

Feel free to mix it up with the (motorised) traffic. I doubt there'd be a law compelling cyclists to use cycle path.

Used to live in Holland for 4 years. Ace never having to worry about RLJing - cars get a speed hump at every set of lights / roundabout, but bikes don't Half the time cyclists can just breeze on by, while the cars (and cyclists that insist on being the traffic) have stop-start lights.

He has secured £300M, the rest will come on parliamentary review or somesuch

So, another Boris Balls Up™ on it's way then. He'll be long gone before anything actually happens anyway.

My guess is that there will be much heralded 'private investment' in the scheme, which will amount to bugger all useful, with taxpayers picking up a grossly inflated bill which bears little or no resemblance to the original figures. Hmm, where have we seen that before, I wonder?

'Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme'- truth is they invest only 10% of the actual running costs of the scheme, in return for free advertising worth far more than their investment.

lycra and sweating not involved! While some of us perverts like such things, actually getting the rest of the general public (who hate both) into cycling could well see the biggest improvements in cycle safety. Becoming less of an outgroup has to be a good thing long term

I want cycling to be normal, a part of everyday life. I want it to be something you feel comfortable doing in your ordinary clothes, something you hardly think about. I want more women cycling, more older people cycling, more black and minority ethnic Londoners cycling, more cyclists of all social backgrounds – without which truly mass participation can never come.

As well as the admirable Lycra-wearers, and the enviable east Londoners on their fixed-gear bikes, I want more of the kind of cyclists you see in Holland, going at a leisurely pace on often clunky steeds.

I will do all this by creating a variety of routes for the variety of cyclists I seek. There will be greatly-improved fast routes on busy roads for cyclists in a hurry. And there will be direct, continuous, quieter routes on side streets for new cyclists, cautious cyclists and all sorts of other people who would rather take it more slowly. But nothing I do will affect cyclists’ freedom to use any road they choose.

I want cycling to be normal, a part of everyday life. I want it to be something you feel comfortable doing in your ordinary clothes, something you hardly think about. I want more women cycling, more older people cycling, more black and minority ethnic Londoners cycling, more cyclists of all social backgrounds – without which truly mass participation can never come.

As well as the admirable Lycra-wearers, and the enviable east Londoners on their fixed-gear bikes, I want more of the kind of cyclists you see in Holland, going at a leisurely pace on often clunky steeds.

I will do all this by creating a variety of routes for the variety of cyclists I seek. There will be greatly-improved fast routes on busy roads for cyclists in a hurry. And there will be direct, continuous, quieter routes on side streets for new cyclists, cautious cyclists and all sorts of other people who would rather take it more slowly. But nothing I do will affect cyclists’ freedom to use any road they choose.

So, how's Boris going to get more 'women, older people and ethnic minorities' cycling then? Because for all that media friendly waffle, he doesn't actually explain this. And why does he go on about 'I want this and that', when it's actually the whole London Assembly involved? Nice for him to get his media chums to dub the scheme 'Boris bikes', when it was in fact Jenny Jones who led the campaign for it. Boris does like to take the glory for the efforts of others. I don't really see him making much real effort, other than attending every possible publicity event, junket with 'business leaders', and shouting about things.

Boris; great on speeches, crap on actually delivering results.

I notice he's neglected to mention that the cycle hire bikes now cost £2 minimum; double what they did previously. This, apparently, is to cover running costs. Why not simply charge Barclays more, or actually tender the sponsorship out to the highest bidder? Maybe that would upset his Barclays chums.

Simple truth is, that the only way to really improve things for cyclists, is to reduce the amount of motor vehicles on the roads. The congestion charge made a huge impact, and was one of the best things to happen in London in many years (Boris would never have allowed such a system; he scrapped the Western extension following complaints from his wealthy Kensington chums), but what we need is continuous reduction in the amount of motor traffic. I accept that goods etc need to be delivered, but how many vehicles actually need to be on the roads? Less cars would mean more buses could be used, which would reduce the pressure on the tube and trains. I'd propose a banning of cars other than for those with disabilities or a genuine reason why they can't use alternatives. Because driving a car in central London, when there are many alternatives, is selfish and helps no-one.

Yes. There is no explanation on how they intend to get more 'women, older people and ethnic minorities' cycling. There doesn't seem to be any mention on how they are going to address the issues that 'prevent' such people riding now.

If he's still £600m short why did he (and the rest of the conservatives) vote against the £41m ammendment to the TfL cycling budget? As usual with Boris just a load of empty bluster until the next load of empty bluster.

how's Boris going to get more 'women, older people and ethnic minorities' cycling then

By making it safe, convenient and 'normal'.

It's the first truly ambitious cycle strategy I can remember seeing. It's not apologetic, it doesn't start with the assumption that there is some totally spurious thing that makes London different to other cities. It commits to giving dedicated road space to cyclists with physical separation. Doing so on the Westway might not make any sense at all but sends one hell of a message. It commits to doing 'fewer things better' - give us one good junction now rather than 3 with a bit of blue paint.

It's a credit to the cycle bloggers who've given the mainstream cycle campaigns a massive kick up the arse over the last couple of years. A great day for cycling in the UK.

And how are they going to achieve that, then? Seeing as how they don't actually really intend to reduce the number of cars, and squeeze cycle lanes into already congested areas? (I won't go into the lack of information on how they are going to address cultural issues which affect ethnic minorities when it comes to cycling, or on how thy are going to reduce bike related crime, or how they're going to actually enforce the law against drivers who knock down and injure cyclists)?

Now they just need to deliver on the promise.

What, like the 'Olympic legacy' which is now seeing the possible destruction of the main stadium to make way for a fully privately owned football-only venue? If, that is, they can ever actually secure it's future at all?

Seeing as how they don't actually really intend to reduce the number of cars, and squeeze cycle lanes into already congested areas?

Motor traffic is pretty much self regulating. It grows to fill the space available. These proposals include dedicated space on the road for cycle lanes and filtered permeability in back streets (so they are no longer available as rat runs). You can't prevent people making journeys by car but you can take space away and make it more inconvenient. At some point people are rational enough to actually do something other than drive.

There are precedents for this - without banging the same old drum, the Dutch have been doing this for 40 years. Take away road space, reduce parking, increase costs of parking on public property (why should you be able to park a car on the public highway for free or for vastly below the rental value of the land if there is permit parking - I'm not allowed to put a shed there to house my bikes).

Motor traffic is pretty much self regulating. It grows to fill the space available.

Fills it, then jams it solid.

without banging the same old drum, the Dutch have been doing this for 40 years

In fairness, the Dutch don't have a city like London. And many of their cities have developed much more recently, allowing more efficient motor transport infrastructure. Much of central London was designed for horses and carts at most.

You can't prevent people making journeys by car

I think we should. I doubt the immensely powerful oil and car manufacturing lobbies would agree with me. Which is what it comes down to; the car is king, and everything else has to fit around that notion. To the detriment of the majority of Londoners.